After years of receiving development assistance despite not meeting
conditionalities, Rwanda has now seen its biggest donors suspend aid.
Established before the genocide and quickly regained under President Paul
Kagame's leadership, Rwanda has a reputation in the international community
for being a model country committed to development. But renewed allegations
that the regime has been supporting the M23 rebels in eastern Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC) led several committed donors to suspend their aid
allocations during the last full week of July.
In spite of undemocratic tendencies, human rights violations, and economic
intervention, donors have remained mostly loyal to the tenacious Rwandan
regime as it has conducted economic and political reforms. Even as President
Kagame continues to deny involvement, warnings from the US that he may be
charged with war crimes suggest that perhaps these suspensions and
accusations could alter the future of his relations with donors.
Allegations and aid suspensions
Accusations from a United Nations report in June that Kigali is funding the
M23 rebels have led to the most significant international reaction to date
against Rwanda. The United States has suspended $200,000 in military aid,
while the UK, the Netherlands, and Germany have delayed $25 million, $6
million, and $26 million, respectively, in official development assistance.
Kigali was also accused in 2008 of backing the 2004-2009 eastern Congolese
uprising of the Congrès national pour la défense du peuple (CNDP), leading
Sweden to suspend its aid. Although a faction of the CNDP was integrated
into the Congolese national army in March 2009 under a peace deal, in April
2012 rebels formed the M23 - their name a tribute to the peace deal on which
they accuse the government of reneging.
Rwanda has since refuted the allegations in a 78-page document that called
the original expert report "the latest act of a carefully orchestrated media
and political strategy to cast Rwanda as the villain in this new wave of
tensions in eastern DRC".
Rwanda disputes much of the evidence produced, alleging that the photographs
of Rwandan uniforms, weapons, and outdated ammunition appearing in the
report could have been purchased anywhere. It also claims a radio
interception between the Rwandan army and M23 as well as the transport of
troops and equipment along poor roads would be technically impossible. Among
other things, the administration repeatedly denounces the experts' failure
to consult Rwandan sources or allow anyone accused of wrongdoing the
opportunity to respond.
Donors await Rwanda's response and the final report from the UN's panel of
experts, due to go to the UN Security Council in early October, to determine
whether the $790 million (which composes 35% of government revenues) could
be permanently at stake.
To understand the significance of this diplomatic shift, greater insight
about the specificities that create Rwanda's unique position as an aid
recipient is needed.
Successful reform despite adversity
After decades of ethnic politics, a civil war, and a genocide destroying
potential for development, Kagame's administration believes in pursuing
reform ambitiously.
In addition to the task of development, the post-genocide Rwandan Patriotic
Front (RPF) coalition government faced a number of institutional and
political challenges. These included maintaining internal and regional
security, judicial and media reform, prosecuting individuals for genocidal
crimes, and preventing the recurrence of insurgency by the Interahamwe and
other Hutu rebels.
The fact that Rwanda is today considered a country with relatively low
levels of corruption, improving political stability, and governmental
effectiveness is a testament to the regime's success. Excepting 2009,
official figures claim GDP growth exceeding 7% for every year since 2004.
For that, it joins a legacy of 'aid darlings' including Uganda's President
Yoweri Museveni and Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zenawi.
Donor patience with the legacy of genocide
Many of the donors who allocate aid to Rwanda (which between 2008 and 2010
averaged around $1 billion in official development assistance) do so because
it is perceived as genuinely committed to socio-economic development. Yet in
spite of this commitment to progressive change and prowess at speaking the
language of development, Rwanda often diverges from aid conditionalities in
ways that displease its donors.
The Kagame regime has played the genocide card to its utmost advantage,
developing and manipulating close relations with the US and UK (its two
largest donors) to maintain high levels of aid in spite of its repression
and failure to adhere to conditionalities like democratisation and requests
for increased press freedom and reduced military strength.
The transition period also saw the alleged execution of a number of human
rights violations which were vehemently condemned by human rights groups,
but accepted as baby steps in the right direction by donors. Upon the
adoption of a new constitution, Kagame was elected president in 2003, and
overwhelmingly re-elected in 2010 in a contest preceded by political
violence and harassment of opposition.
Minor disagreements also exist with the priorities the regime has set along
its path to development. Goals include public investment in infrastructure,
revenue raising, government reorganisation and decentralisation, health and
education service delivery, agricultural modernisation (in a way that would
decrease the scope for smallholder agriculture), and the expansion of the
private sector.
Most donors agree that for state-building to progress, Rwanda should expand
its economic base in a way that would increase sector productivity, not
relegate it to the development of manufacturing and service sectors. This
difference recognises the importance of providing employment for the vast
numbers of underemployed rural inhabitants, 89% of whom are dependent on
agriculture for their livelihoods.
Perhaps donors' concerns are not more vehemently expressed because of a
desire to ensure above all that their presence does no harm; some, suggests
Peter Uvin, may even feel guilt about fuelling the inequality, racism, and
oppression that sparked the genocide.
Still, apprehension exists about the level of governmental involvement in
financial affairs. Will they oppose the standard neoliberal model and follow
the East Asian example of governmental participation in business and narrow
political space? Perhaps not, if we take into account Phil Clark's assertion
that the repression is actually aimed at showing strength while curtailing
factions within the RPF, and if donors maintain faith that internal dynamics
will eventually necessitate political liberalisation.
Promoting regional security
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Rwanda's role in promoting regional
stability must also be acknowledged, and it is here, as current events
indicate, that the most controversy exists.
Not only the birth but also the ascendance of the RPF was a direct result of
divisive ethnic relations. But the defeat of the Rwandan army that ended the
civil war and sent the génocidaires fleeing did not reduce the RPF's role in
ensuring stability. In response to refugee camp violence and the
victimisation of the eastern DRC's Tutsi Banyamulenge, the RPF spearheaded a
regional invasion in the First Congo War, backing Laurent Kabila's ascent to
power.
Rwandan authorities have long been accused (most recently by Human Rights
Watch) of using the CNDP (now M23) as a proxy army to fight against the
regrouped génocidaires known as the Forces démocratiques de libération du
Rwanda (FDLR), and of trying to maintain military influence in eastern Congo
to benefit from the mineral resources in the area.
The continued presence of Rwanda in neighbouring territory until 2002 led
Norway to freeze its official development assistance, while other donors
remained conflicted about how to interpret and respond to these actions.
Reports of illegal resource exploitation in the DRC and human rights abuses,
led the UK to temporarily suspend its general budget support in 2004 in a
plea that the sovereignty of neighbouring states be respected.
Are times changing?
Since the genocide, donors have largely held their noses and given the
Kagame administration the space it requests to overcome the institutional
challenges lingering from its history of ethnic animosity. Although
disagreements have occurred between donors and Kigali in the past, Kagame
has hardly been in a situation where he has needed to change his path.
Although foreign aid has helped accomplish many of the regime's development
goals, Kagame has repeatedly called for Africa to graduate from aid
dependence. Invoking this professed aspiration, Foreign Minister Louise
Mushikiwabo recently told a Kenyan business club in a speech related to the
"mess" in Congo, "This child-to-parent relationship has to end...there has
to be a minimum respect."
She continued: "As long as countries wave chequebooks over our heads, we can
never be equal."
The Kagame administration has stressed that although it would work with the
DRC (something it recently re-pledged at the African Union summit in Addis
Ababa), it also would not hesitate to take matters into its own hands.
While the jury is still out as to whether Rwanda's refutation will be
sufficient to maintain its reputation as an aid darling, Mushikiwabo was
certainly right about one thing when she said: "We have been in much worse
situations than dollars being withheld from us."
Courtney Meyer is currently studying for an MSc in Development Studies at
the School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Her interests include
politics and official development assistance in sub-Saharan Africa.
------------[ Sent via the dehai-wn mailing list by dehai.org]--------------
Received on Mon Aug 06 2012 - 16:47:19 EDT
